Aesthetix Calypso vs ARC LS25 MK2

Yes TVAD, one moniker is enough. I created AudioPerv per a joking suggestion in another thread. I may use it on occasion.
Magnepanmike, When was the LS25 II introduced. Last time I heard it was last summer at Audio Connections in Verona (NJ). I do not think it was an Mk1, yet it is possible. During the same sitting I also listened to the REF II Mk. 2, which is also based on 6H30 tubes and is anything but vapid.

Well it looks like another thread run amuck with ARC bashers, what is with you people?
I'm on my second ARC pre, the first was the SP16L, and my current is the LS25 MK1
(XLR to amps=critical). These pre's are anything but dull, boring, slow, thick or syrupy. ARC's been making pre's for a long time and there are alot of them out there, so they must be doing something right. I'm sorry, but I have a great deal of respect for ARC and just don't understand the negative comments. I'll get off my soapbox now.

I think I've assembled a very nice system and have no desire to change any component with the possible exception of the pre. I listen mostly to rock, some jazz/fusion and female vocalist. I like a touch of warmth, hence the tubed pre. But I also love good dynamics and bass slam for rock and feel the MK1 is pretty darn good at it, but could possibly be somewhat better. I've done my homework and read till I can read no more, and for me it boils down to three pre's ARC LS25 MK1 & MK2 and the Calypso. I've had two tube guys tell me I should go from the MK1 to the MK2, that there is no comparison between the two, and that the MK2 is NOT SS sounding.

And then there's the raving reviews of the Calypso that cannot be ignored. Also, much positive press here on Agon with the exception of some early "tube noise" issues that seem to have been resolved. All three of these pre's are at the same pricepoint, so this is not an issue.

Magnepanmike, can you give a little more insight as to why you feel the MK2 is SS sounding? An example of the system/music and time spent with it perhaps?

Guidocorona, I agree with most of your comments regarding ARC.
But please tell me why you hate the MK2 so much?

>>If you are wanting a traditional tube sound, the MK2's may not be the one.<<

Therein lies the crux of ARC's problem. They do not sound like tubes. As the gentleman said, terminally vapid, dry, and boring. Perhaps your speakers work well with these sonics but most reference level speakers do not.

Perfectionist, I found the sound of LS25 Mk. 2 to be far to 'polite' and almost veiled.
It sounded as if it were saying 'oh well, here is another note for you'.
I heard it in two contexts: ARC CD 3 Mk. 2 + LS25 Mk2 + Rowland 302 + Utopia (don't remember Model), and in a totally ARC system: ARC CD 3 Mk 2, LS 25 Mk 2, ARC VT200, MagnePan 3.6. Music was classical: chamber, orchestra, vocal. In both cases the ARC Ref 2 Mk. 2 transformed the system completely: much broader soundstage (still not perfectly defined), top/bottom extension, fuller midrange, incredibly better macrodynamics, overall sense of excitement and of wanting to immerse myself into the music. I was though more enthrolled with the Ref 2 when it was driving the ARC VT200 rather than the Rowland 302.
As you can see, I am no ARC basher by any stretch, and am seriously considering the new Ref 3 as my next linestage.
I have been an ARC customer for 13 years. I do understand brand loyalty. Why not consider a used REF 2 Mk. 2? It may cost the same as a new LS25 and give you so much more. . . and still be indestructable!

>>ARC's been making pre's for a long time and there are alot of them out there<<

Yup, they're so popular you can find 110 pieces of ARC gear for sale on Audiogon. Maybe owners are catching on to the fact that for similiar money better products from companies such as Joule, VAC, BAT, Supratek, Canary, Cary, deHavilland, Aesthetix, Atma-Sphere, and CAT are available.
Bashing?? No, simply more awareness and knowledge on the part of the audiophile.